JK Rowling Supports Trump's Crackdown on Gender Ideology, Calling It a Response to 'Calamity

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

As a dem, I tend to support this reversal too. It had gone way too far and was out of control. Pandering to the extreme, to accommodate the 1.5%.

Except, how severe is the damage resulting from this ideology. Remember when the George Bush used the specter of  gay marriage to help him win the 2004 election? This issue generates a lot of emotion but how much does it really affect the daily life of most Americans?

[WDSmart]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

57 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I think all the DEI and transgender resistance is much like racism. Many people still believe anyone who is not the same as they are, or as they think people should be, is inferior and must be either changed or segregated. Sad... 

 

Well, DEI isn't "much like" racism. It is the very definition of racism.

 

It prioritzes candidates for jobs/university places etc. based on race.

 

Can't get much more racist than that. What next? The front seats on the bus?

 

Like Liberals, the name "Progressives" and "anti-racists" chose for themselves is the exact opposite of what they are.

DEI is much the same as Affirmative Action, which was an attempt at a REMEDY for racism.

It doesn't "prioritize" candidates based on race (or gender or transgender). It only asks the employer to CONSIDER the DEI of their workplace when choosing among candidates. That would make race, heritage, gender, transgender, etc., one of the candidate's attributes to be considered.

 

We are "progressive," "anti-racist," and "woke." 

[carlyai]

But if the knight her, won't she be a male then?

Aren't knights males?

Anyway, give her and Donald a big "clap" for being realists.

I will never get around the idea of 2 males or 2 females having kids. But that's just puritan me.

[connda]

Good for her. 

[xylophone]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's another thing entirely to try to ERASE an entire group of people.

Well I don't see it that way and even though I'm not a Trump supporter, I do like what the brains behind him are doing, and reverting to male and female genders is natural and common sense IMO.

 

When I saw people saying they "identified with....." or "identified as...... " then to me it was a sign that the world had gone, or was going, mad and I was totally against it.

 

There are males and there are females and that has been the way since time immemorial, and reverting to that situation won't erase anybody, but will just stop the nonsense which surrounds this whole DEI/transgender/LGBTQ+/identifying as... Idiocy, and people will carry on just the same as they always have done as in the sane times of yesteryear when all this nonsense was unheard of.

[WDSmart]

52 minutes ago, xylophone said:

There are males and there are females and that has been the way since time immemorial

This is where you are wrong. There have ALWAYS been transgender and LGBTQ+ people. You can find them referred to in many historical accounts. Also, the rest of the animal world also has individuals that are not 100% male or female. It's just part of nature. 

[xylophone]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

This is where you are wrong. There have ALWAYS been transgender and LGBTQ+ people. You can find them referred to in many historical accounts. Also, the rest of the animal world also has individuals that are not 100% male or female. It's just part of nature. 

Can't disagree with your post, however changing laws or making special cases for this tiny minority IMO should really not be entertained. The problem being that you will have, and do have, males competing as females in a female sport, for example. And as for the nonsense about "identifying as", well that's gone too far.

 

Next we will have someone trying to persuade authorities that they identify as a rabbit and therefore are not governed by rules made for humans! It has gotten that stupid.
 

[mrwebb8825]

On 1/22/2025 at 6:08 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

It would be wonderful if the people and the media would talk about individual preferences and not political party alliances. People could get together about many things. But only if they feel comfortable expressing their own opinions without the pressure that they have to support certain politicians, political parties, media, etc.

Welcome to MAGA!

[ElwoodP]

Posts removed, if you want them to remain use politicians real names.

@OneMoreFarang

[OneMoreFarang]

11 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Welcome to MAGA!

MAGA fanboys worship their hero. And their hero is obviously always right and the greatest and smartest guy on earth and all that.

 

Some of us are smart enough to know that there is not just black and white. Trump is often wrong. But sometimes he has good ideas and is right. Same as Musk, he has some great ideas, and then another time he sounds like an ill-informed idiot. And many others on any side of the political spectrum.

 

I wish MAGA fanboys would think a little, at least from time to time. Is all what Trump tells you correct? Is he often lying? Does he shoot from the hip without much thinking?

You can still like some of his politics or even most of his politics. But please be realistic enough that he is not the messiah and that he has lots of stupid ideas. 

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

I wish MAGA fanboys would think a little, at least from time to time. Is all what Trump tells you correct? Is he often lying? Does he shoot from the hip without much thinking?

You can still like some of his politics or even most of his politics. But please be realistic enough that he is not the messiah and that he has lots of stupid ideas. 

Using your own logic,

Was Kamala your messiah?

[soalbundy]

On 1/23/2025 at 9:25 AM, Woke to Sounds of Horking said:

 

Absolutely - it was social engineering.

 

Part of the divide and konker strategy from the Big Boys. Part of the depop agenda.

konker is what boys play, conquer is what states do

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Using your own logic,

Was Kamala your messiah?

Obviously not. I don't like her.

But she still behaved like a grown-up person who thinks before she opens her mouth and who does not shoot from the hip.

She was also not many times bankrupt, a convicted criminal, and all that.

So, all in all, IMHO, she is still a lot better than Trump.

 

[James105]

17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

MAGA fanboys worship their hero. And their hero is obviously always right and the greatest and smartest guy on earth and all that.

 

Some of us are smart enough to know that there is not just black and white. Trump is often wrong. But sometimes he has good ideas and is right. Same as Musk, he has some great ideas, and then another time he sounds like an ill-informed idiot. And many others on any side of the political spectrum.

 

I wish MAGA fanboys would think a little, at least from time to time. Is all what Trump tells you correct? Is he often lying? Does he shoot from the hip without much thinking?

You can still like some of his politics or even most of his politics. But please be realistic enough that he is not the messiah and that he has lots of stupid ideas. 

 

He is right on this.  There are 2 genders.  How many do you think there are?  

[OneMoreFarang]

16 minutes ago, James105 said:

He is right on this.  There are 2 genders.  How many do you think there are?  

 

There are two sexes: male (XY) and female (XX).

And there are gay guys and guys who have an operation which removes the male genitals and things like that.

I am sure some people just feel like they are born in the wrong body. 

Is that a different gender, by today's definition? I don't know.

 

The concept that all kids are somehow born the same and are manipulated to behave like boys or girls is obviously BS. And I am pretty sure most of us know it's BS. But then there are of course some very loud activists. And some people who think they can make a lot of money from trans people. And too many people are too scared to say in public that those activists are nutters.

[James105]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There are two sexes: male (XY) and female (XX).

And there are gay guys and guys who have an operation which removes the male genitals and things like that.

I am sure some people just feel like they are born in the wrong body. 

Is that a different gender, by today's definition? I don't know.

 

Today's definition is a grift that kept Stonewall relevant after they achieved their original goals of achieving equal rights for gays and lesbians.  

[OneMoreFarang]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

Today's definition is a grift that kept Stonewall relevant after they achieved their original goals of achieving equal rights for gays and lesbians.  

So how do you think we should discuss things?

Like I think there are two genders by the definition of 1950. And 3 by the definition of 2020? And 70 in 2024? Or what?

That's why I tried to explain my opinion without that word. Because currently there is no agreed definition of that word.

[mrwebb8825]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

MAGA fanboys worship their hero. And their hero is obviously always right and the greatest and smartest guy on earth and all that.

 

Some of us are smart enough to know that there is not just black and white. Trump is often wrong. But sometimes he has good ideas and is right. Same as Musk, he has some great ideas, and then another time he sounds like an ill-informed idiot. And many others on any side of the political spectrum.

 

I wish MAGA fanboys would think a little, at least from time to time. Is all what Trump tells you correct? Is he often lying? Does he shoot from the hip without much thinking?

You can still like some of his politics or even most of his politics. But please be realistic enough that he is not the messiah and that he has lots of stupid ideas. 

Just when I thought you'd caught on to what MAGA is. It's a movement not a person hence no political title. Yes Trump started it and currently leads it but it's base is simply common sense. President Trump has 'fanboys' but MAGA is people fed up with with politicians running the country into the ground in a celebration of stupidity. The LA fires are the perfect example. FEMA was ordered to ignore Trump supporters homes during the halfassed response to the hurricane victims but when it came to the LA fires then it's all "Let's not focus on the past" "Fema response shouldn't be political" "We need We need We need...".

I and many other MAGA supporters are sick and tired of dancing faggots in the streets and teaching our children, unchecked riots, a military that was fast becoming unreliable, the organization of a chicken union so the same eggs cost 200+% more, etc., etc., etc

[Jingthing]

She's rich and famous and has writing talent but I don't put any special weight on her opinions on gender issues. It's not like she's a medical or scientific specialist on the subject. 

[OneMoreFarang]

23 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Just when I thought you'd caught on to what MAGA is. It's a movement not a person hence no political title. Yes Trump started it and currently leads it but it's base is simply common sense.

 

Is it all common sense?

To me it seems MAGA fans believe everything Trump tells them - at least I get that impression from seeing Trump and those MAGA fans.

Do they all think by themself, and do they all have common sense? Or is it more like a cult where everybody shouts hurray because everybody around them shouts hurray?

 

[mrwebb8825]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Is it all common sense?

To me it seems MAGA fans believe everything Trump tells them - at least I get that impression from seeing Trump and those MAGA fans.

Do they all think by themself, and do they all have common sense? Or is it more like a cult where everybody shouts hurray because everybody around them shouts hurray?

 

Once again, you're not looking at the whole picture. You could trade this pic for a Harris rally pic and see the same thing. (only smaller) A little under 1/2 the country is registered to vote (just over 161 million) and around 152 million actually voted. Just under 78M for President Trump and the scary part is the just under 75M that voted for Harris/Walz. (scary because she was anointed and not elected to run and he looked like a lost soul chosen to prostitute himself for the party. (talk about "fanboys") I seriously started to feel bad for the guy at the end.

Always makes me think of the Pelosi interview after AOC won where she said (paraphrased) "There are parts of this country where we could put a "D" behind a bottle of water and it would win.."

[JonnyF]

On 1/23/2025 at 3:58 PM, WDSmart said:

That would make race, heritage, gender, transgender, etc., one of the candidate's attributes to be considered.

 

The very definition of racism, Sexism, discrimination based on immutable characteristics.

 

Thanks for confirming. 

 

There's no hiding now. DEi has been exposed and anyone who supports it is a racist and a sexist by definition.

 

You can hide behind the bekind hastag but it is what it is. 

 

The only good thing DEI ever did was pit Harris against Trump. A complete mismatch. Thanks Nancy.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Always makes me think of the Pelosi interview after AOC won where she said (paraphrased) "There are parts of this country where we could put a "D" behind a bottle of water and it would win.."

 

And there are parts where Trump, with an R, won. I wonder which one is worse.

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, JonnyF said:

There's no hiding now. DEi has been exposed and anyone who supports it is a racist and a sexist by definition.

DEI, like Affirmative Action before it, is NOT racist or sexist. Read the definitions of those terms below. DEI is an attempt to correct the wrongs perpetrated by the former and continuing racist and sexist hiring practices.

A RACIST is "someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc., than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result." - Online Cambridge Dictionary

A SEXIST is someone who suggests "...that the members of one sex are less able, intelligent, etc. than the members of the other sex, or referring to that sex's bodies, behaviour, or feelings in a negative way."  - Online Cambridge Dictionary

Neither DEI nor Affirmative Action was based on beliefs that anyone was INFERIOR because of their race or gender.

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Neither DEI nor Affirmative Action was based on beliefs that anyone was INFERIOR because of their race or gender.

DEI & AA, was a failed attempt to appease the minority special interest groups to win votes.

 

Thankfully it failed miserably.   People aren't that stupid any more.

 

DEI  ... IMHO, was both racist and sexist.  Quotas never work, for anyone, IMHO

 

Labels don't equate to quality.

[WDSmart]

39 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

DEI & AA, was a failed attempt to appease the minority special interest groups to win votes.

 

Thankfully it failed miserably.   People aren't that stupid any more.

 

DEI  ... IMHO, was both racist and sexist.  Quotas never work, for anyone, IMHO

 

Labels don't equate to quality.

DEO and AA were attempts to repair the damage that historical racist (White supremacists) and sexist (femmephobia) have done in regards to hiring. 

AA certainly did not fail. It resulted in a more "woke" attitude by employers and the hiring of more non-Whites and females.
DEI has done the same thing but has not been as effective as AA because, unlike AA, DEI was not a law and was not accompanied by penalties.

Neither DEI nor AA are/were racist or sexist. They both do/did not suggest that anyone was inferior or superior because of race or gender. They only ask (DEI) or mandated (AA) an employer to hire in a manner that would assure their workforce's race and gender ratios were similar to the population.

Labels such as DEI and AA may not lead to complete equality, but racist or sexist labels certainly do lead to inequality. 

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

DEO and AA were attempts to repair the damage that historical racist (White supremacists) and sexist (femmephobia) have done in regards to hiring. 

AA certainly did not fail. It resulted in a more "woke" attitude by employers and the hiring of more non-Whites and females.
DEI has done the same thing but has not been as effective as AA because, unlike AA, DEI was not a law and was not accompanied by penalties.

Neither DEI nor AA are/were racist or sexist. They both do/did not suggest that anyone was inferior or superior because of race or gender. They only ask (DEI) or mandated (AA) an employer to hire in a manner that would assure their workforce's race and gender ratios were similar to the population.

Labels such as DEI and AA may not lead to complete equality, but racist or sexist labels certainly do lead to inequality. 

That's one opinion.  Mine differs.  

 

Hiring unqualified people isn't good for anyone.  Quite the opposite.

 

Allowing admission to uni, of unqualified people isn't helping anyone.  Quite the opposite.

 

And how did that lending money, home mortgages, to unqualified applicants work out ? 

 

FAIL ... FAIL ... and really bad FAIL

Open your eyes & brain to facts, instead of BS.

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's one opinion.  Mine differs.  

 

Hiring unqualified people isn't good for anyone.  Quite the opposite.

 

Allowing admission to uni, of unqualified people isn't helping anyone.  Quite the opposite.

 

And how did that lending money, home mortgages, to unqualified applicants work out ? 

 

FAIL ... FAIL ... and really bad FAIL

Open your eyes & brain to facts, instead of BS.

Neither AA nor DEI mandate nor suggest anyone hire UNQUALIFIED people. All people hired should meet the minimum requirements. What both AA and DEI do is try to change the practice of making race (White) or gender (male) a basic qualification for hiring to make race or gender just another consideration to take into account among QUALIFIED applicants.

Lending money to UNQUALIFIED applicants is not a good idea. But classifying non-Whites and females as UNQUALIFIED because of their race or gender is racist or sexist. This practice must be eliminated. 

My eyes and brain are open to facts and are not mislead by KL.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Neither AA nor DEI mandate nor suggest anyone hire UNQUALIFIED people. All people hired should meet the minimum requirements. What both AA and DEI do is try to change the practice of making race (White) or gender (male) a basic qualification for hiring to make race or gender just another consideration to take into account among QUALIFIED applicants.

Lending money to UNQUALIFIED applicants is not a good idea. But classifying non-Whites and females as UNQUALIFIED because of their race or gender is racist or sexist. This practice must be eliminated. 

My eyes and brain are open to facts and are not mislead by KL.

We obviously live in different worlds.  Yours mistakenly theoretical, mine reality.

 

Have a nice day

[Bday Prang]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:31 PM, WDSmart said:

This is where you are wrong. There have ALWAYS been transgender and LGBTQ+ people. You can find them referred to in many historical accounts. Also, the rest of the animal world also has individuals that are not 100% male or female. It's just part of nature. 

there are also thousands of people affected by plethora of genetic and chromosomal issues    but we never here much about them despite them being part of nature, neither are there multi million pound "opportunities" set up for them ostensibly to support them  (but used to enrich the more unscrupulous lefties in reality.)